Monday, 26 September 2011

In a multi-ethnic STATE, posing as a NATION, the “colour-blind”, or those who can feign it, are kings, by being able to claim moral superiority for themselves and thus access to power and privilege.

In the Middle Ages it was church ideology and its authoritative interpretation of the Word of God which provided the “moral high ground” for society’s ruling elites, the means by which they exerted moral authority and the power that goes with it. Now it is the ideology of “One-Human-Racism”, of “Colour-Blindness”, of “Race-Doesn’t-Matter”, i.e. is of no social or political importance (especially in respect to national identity), except to evil “racists” like the Nazis.

The truth, however, does not lie in the Christian gospels, no matter how interpreted, nor in the ideology of One-Human-Racism. On the contrary, race and ethnic origins are of fundamental importance for any deep and meaningful sense of both personaland group, i.e. national, identity.

It is only the mercenary, multi-ethnic STATE, whose authority and power rests on its claim to nationhood, that insists on denying and demonising (as “racist”) the importance of race and ethnic origins for national identity.

America was always multi-ethnic, whereas western European states have made themselves multi-ethnic, in order for their politicians to be able to claim the spurious moral high ground of “colour-blindnesss” for themselves, and the power-political advantages that go with it.

WHY? Because the SYSTEM (of state and capita)l treats children in accordance with how it treats the rest of us: as a developing “human resource” and consumer (or client), rather than as developing human beings.

To understand WHY, one has to view society and its development from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective. Evolution adapted human nature (emotions, motivations, gratifications and behaviour patterns) to a tribal environment which has now been replaced by the artificial, socio-economic environment of civilisation, which we are ILL adapted and thus corrupted to survive and seek perverted forms of “success” in.

But there is nothing we can do about it without first recognising this and developing an understanding of it. Trouble is that “moral authority” forbids us from taking a Darwinian view of human society, because that’s what those wicked and discredited social Darwinists did.

I voted for the LibDems at the last general election because of their commitment to a far more democratic electoral system (PR), with the potential to bring real change to Britain’s sclerotic political system, but despite getting into government they failed miserably, even to get the half-baked compromise of AV onto the statute books, the British people, in their infinite wisdom (manipulated by the powers that be), deciding that they didn’t want a more democratic voting system, or the opportunity to bring real change to Britain’s corrupt political status quo.

I voted for them, despite their candidate in my constituency being a Somali refugee. I jest not! Not elected by the local party, but parachuted in by head office to make up for their lack of ethnic minority candidates. He seemed a nice enough guy, but did I want to be represented in the British parliament by a Somali?! Or anyone other than a member of my own PEOPLE . . . ? Definitely NOT. Any more than a native American wants to be represented by anyone other than a member of his own native people.

After the election, I joined the LibDems as a party member, in the expectation of thereby having the opportunity to engage with them and discuss their politics, but apart from putting me on their national mailing list, nothing happened. No one from the local party got in touch. They obviously weren’t interested in engaging with me, but just wanted my support for whatever politics they’d already decided upon.

It seems to me that the LibDems are committed to one policy more than any other: of putting an end to “white majority rule” in Britain as soon as possible (currently predicted to be around the year 2066).

WHY? I joined their party in order to discuss that very question with them, but unfortunately never got the opportunity. Thus, I can only guess at what their motivations are. What I guess is that it’s a power-politically perverted continuation of their former (quite reasonable) efforts to put an end to white minority rule in South Africa, which, in their blind pursuit of moral self-righteousness and political power, they assume is the right thing to do, creating a globalised, “post-racial” and “post-European” Britain.

I regret never having the opportunity to discuss this with them. I’ve allowed my membership to lapse, still without hearing a dicky bird from them. Which is why I’m posting some of my thoughts on the LibDems here.

Nick Clegg’s political career may be short-lived, but guarantees him personal fame and fortune for the rest of his life – not to mention a nice fat pension.

Monday, 12 September 2011

Political correctness is a means of exercising social, political (and economic) control, a degree of which is, of course, necessary; but it lends itself to massive abuse by those seeking power-political and/or economic advantage - as those in politics, business and the media always are.

In the Middle Ages, political correctness was defined by the Church, which derived massive political power and social advantage for its members from it. With the decline in Christian belief, a “moral power vacuum” arose, which has been largely filled by the, mainly secular, liberal (and not so liberal) Left.

In place of “original sin”, which only submission to the authority of the church could save us from, it is now “prejudice” (especially, racial prejudice, i.e. “racism”**), we must be saved from by our “moral superiors” in academia, politics and the media.

** Being human, we are all stuffed full of prejudices, about everything, including race, of course, which we need to control in a rational and civilised fashion, just as we need to control our sexual lusts and other aspects of “original sin”, but by demonising them as “evil” we are forced to suppress and deny them, even to ourselves, thereby providing the state (in earlier times, inseparable from the church) with an artificial and spurious source of “moral authority” as a powerful means of social control.

If you consider what a deeply tribal animal we humans are, it is obvious that racial prejudice is as natural and healthy a part of our nature as sexual lusts are, which the individual needs to be aware of, in order to exercise rational and civilised control over them, rather than allowing their demonisation and suppression by the state for the purpose of authoritarian social control.

“. . with Western economies once more staring into the abyss . . . . there is little or no consensus about what needs to be done.”

Because the global capitalist-consumer economy – on which we all depend, and are thus loath to question – is built on sand, which business people, investors, economists and the politicians they advise are, thus far, psychologically incapable of recognising and facing up to, rationalising this behaviour by insisting that the only alternative would be “socialism” which has been tried and rejected as being far worse, notwithstanding all its faults, than consumer capitalism.

It’s fascinating and frightening to observe how such highly esteemed, intelligent and well educated people, as all the leading social science academics who advise our business and political elites surely are, can still be so blind towards and deceived about human nature, the society (social, political and economic structures) it has given rise to over the centuries and our situation within it, and when anyone (like me) tries pointing it out, we are simply dismissed as unqualified crackpots – just as those questioning the literal truth of the Christian gospels or belief in an Earth-centred universe were in earlier times . . .

The denied or trivialised truth is that our economic system is deeply rooted in man’s Darwinian nature, which is why, in many respects, it works so well – because it comes naturally to us, appealing to our inherent drives.

Only, Darwinian evolution adapted us to a tribal environment VERY different from the artificial environment which now constitutes civilisation, and behaviours and motivations which once served our survival are now leading to our self-destruction.

We deceive ourselves into believing that we are a “rational animal”, guided by reason, when in fact we are far more a “rationalising animal”, interpreting reality to suit our own, largely preconceived and socially preconditioned, narrow and short-sighted self-interests.

Until we recognise and develop an understanding of the perverted Darwinian nature of our civilisation and situation, we are doomed to suffer the blind Darwinian fate of an animal no longer adapted to its environment.

About Me

I am a native Englishman and European with a strong sense of ethnic and NATIONAL, as opposed to STATE (i.e. British) identity. And no, I am not a racist, white supremacist or neo-Nazi, but will elaborate on this issue in my blogs.